Judgment

TULZAPURKAR, J.:- This appeal by certificate under Art. 133 (1) (a) (b) of the Constitution, raises an interesting but complex question of law, namely, what was the law of limitation applicable in the Union Territories of Goa, Daman and Diu to proceedings launched therein prior to and pending at the date of liberation. The question arises in these circumstances.

One Melquiades Lusitano Joaquim Urbano Pereira died some time order to 1941 leaving as his heirs his widow Maria Cristina De Souza Sodder (Appellant No. 1) two sons Elasbano Pereira and Ciano Pereira (appellants Nos. 2 & 3) and two daughters Marias Zurona Pereira and Linda Pereira (Respns. Nos. 1 & 3). After the death of Melquiades his estate and property were partitioned on or about 28-1-1941 at that time respondent No. 1 was minor. On 15-3-1960, the first respondent and her husband second respondent filed a suit against the appellants and third and fourth respondents (fourth respondent being the husband of the third respondent) in the Comarca Court at Margao alleging that in the partition effected on January 28, 1941 certain items of properties had not been properly valued by the appellants as a result whereof they had suffered a loss, that respondent No. 1 who was a minor then had come to know of such improper valuation (under-valuation) only after her marriage and that, therefore. the said partition be amended and they be compensated for the loss suffered by them. Respondents Nos. 3 & 4 filed a written statement supporting the allegations contained in the plaint and further filed a counter-claim praying that the said partition be rescinded on the ground that it was null and void due to simulation and collusion. The learned trial Judge by his judgment and order dated March 8, 1968 decreed the suit and the counter-claim. feeling aggrieved by the said decree the appellants preferred an appeal being First Appeal No. 6 of 1968 to the Judicial Commissioners Court at Goa on June 6, 1968.

2. Two preliminary contentions were raised on behalf of the respondents: (a) that the appeal had not been filed in proper Court and (b) that it was barred by law of limitation. These contentions were based on the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter called the Portuguese Code). The respondents pointed out that according to the provisions of Portuguese Code (Art. 687) the appeal was required to be filed in the Court which decided the suit and as such appellants could not have lodged the appeal in the Court of Judicial Commissioner. It was further pointed out that under Art. 686 of the Portuguese Code the period of limitation for filing an appeal was 8 days from the service of the judgment or order of the trial Court and that since the appeal was filed beyond that period it was evidently barred by time. On the other hand, the appellants relying upon certain events that had taken place between the institution of the suit and the pronouncement of the judgment by the trial Court contended that the appeal had been properly filed in the Judicial Commissioners Court and that the same was within time. It may be stated that admittedly four events took place during the pendency of the suit viz: (a) the territories of Goa, Daman and Diu were liberated and became a part of the Union of India with effect from Dec. 20, 1961; (b) the Limitation Act, 1963 that was enacted by the Parliament and which came into force on January 1, 1964, became applicable to the whole of India including the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu; (c) the Parliament also enacted the Goa, Daman and Diu (Extension of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Arbitration Act 1940) Act, 1965 (Act XXX of 1965) whereunder the provisions of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure 1908 were extended to the territories of Goa, Daman and Diu with effect from June 15, 1966, with the corresponding provisions of the Portuguese Code being repealed and (d) the Legislative Assembly of Goa, Daman and Diu enacted the Goa,